NYT Still Suppressing Hunter’s October Surprise
It’s no surprise that the Times doesn’t want to talk about The October Surprise That Wasn’t.
The New York Times thinks Hillary Clinton would’ve won the 2016 election if only the American people had known about Stormy Daniels. That’s the upshot of an article titled “Donald Trump, and the Sordid Tradition of Suppressing October Surprises.”
We’re not at all surprised that the Trump-haters at the Times feel this way. Ever since Trump’s stunning victory over Clinton in 2016, leftists have tried manfully to deny reality, to convince themselves that the Russians swung the election to Bad Orange Man, when in fact it was a simple combination of God’s grace, the Republican candidate’s charisma and compelling messaging, and the utter repulsiveness of the Democrat in the pantsuit.
Given that it took the Times 17 months to finally “authenticate” Hunter Biden’s laptop, it’s also no surprise that not once in the 1,727-word article ostensibly about October surprises do the words “Hunter,” “Biden,” or “laptop” appear.
It’s true. Not once does the Times’s Jonathan Weisman mention the October surprise to end all October surprises — the one that we know would’ve changed history because the polling taken shortly after the 2020 election tells us just that.
That election, which resulted in a razor-thin victory by Joe Biden over Donald Trump — a victory decided by just 43,000 votes across three states — would’ve been altered dramatically if only Twitter, Facebook, Big Media, the FBI, and our nation’s intelligence services hadn’t actively interfered on behalf of the decrepit Democrat.
We can even pinpoint the date that this corrupt cabal altered history. It was October 14, 2020, the date of the original New York Post bombshell about Hunter and Joe Biden’s influence-peddling operation.
October 14. That was the date, just over two weeks before the election, that Twitter and Facebook, at the urging of the FBI, suppressed the story by refusing to allow it to be shared on social media. Twitter went so far as to lock the Post’s account for two weeks — essentially for the remainder of the election cycle.
Polling done shortly after the election showed that a whopping 17% of Biden voters would’ve changed their vote for him if only they’d known about the information that was kept from them. If only they’d known that what they were being told was “Russian disinformation” was in fact a disinformation operation being perpetrated on them by our own intelligence services to cover for a corrupt swamp dweller.
Think about it. Joe Biden got, ahem, 81 million votes in 2020, whereas Donald Trump got more than 74 million. If 17% of Biden’s vote total had been shifted to Trump, the result would’ve been a historic landslide. Trump’s total would’ve been around 88 million, and Biden’s total would’ve dropped to 67 million. Even if, say, a few million Biden voters couldn’t have brought themselves to vote for Trump and instead went with a third-party candidate or just didn’t vote, the voter differential is still stunning.
A more recent poll, taken in August 2022, was even more resounding. According to Tipp Insights:
“Terming the laptop ‘disinformation’ by the FBI, Intelligence Community, Congress, and the Biden campaign, along with Big Tech, impacted voters,” said Technometrica President Raghavan Mayur, who’s been recognized as the most accurate pollster in recent presidential elections. “A significant majority — 78 percent — believe that access to the correct information could have been critical to their decision at the polls.”
In fact, 47 percent said that knowing before the election that the laptop contents were real and not “disinformation” would have changed their voting decision — including more than two-thirds (71 percent) of Democrats.
And all Donald Trump needed was to flip 43,000 votes in three states: Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
No wonder the Times chose not to mention the October Surprise That Wasn’t.
Start a conversation using these share links: